Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Power

151. Respond and Restrain: Deterrence and Reassurance in Northeast Asia

Author:
Brad Glosserman
Publication Date:
12-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The US extended deterrent in Northeast Asia is strong. US alliances with Japan and South Korea are each arguably in the best shape in years, with alliance modernization efforts proceeding in tandem with domestic adjustments to security policy that strengthen the foundation for cooperative action. Policy toward North Korea, historically a wedge between Washington and allied governments in the region, is largely aligned, and serving as a glue rather than a source of discord. This otherwise sunny outlook is darkened by the difficulties in the Seoul-Tokyo relationship. The (from a US perspective) obvious convergence of interests among the three governments is overshadowed by a lengthy and depressingly well-rehearsed list of problems. The second US-ROK-Japan Trilateral Extended Deterrence Dialogue, hosted by Pacific Forum CSIS and the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, with indirect support from the Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), explored ways to overcome those obstacles to enhanced cooperation. In an attempt to push the envelope, the 43 senior participants from the three countries joined 17 Pacific Forum Young Leaders (all attending in their private capacities) in discussions and a tabletop exercise that was designed to explore reactions to a nuclear contingency on the Korean Peninsula. The results were sobering and underscored the need for increased coordination and planning among the three governments to prepare for such a crisis in Northeast Asia.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

152. Assessing a Deal or Non-deal with Iran: The Critical Issue of Iran's Progress in Weapons Research, Development, and Production Capability.

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
It now seems unlikely that the P5+1 countries of the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany can reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran by the end of November. A final agreement remains a possibility, but it seems far more likely that if an agreement is not reached, the negotiations will be extended rather than abandoned all together. The question then arises as to how to judge the outcome of this set of negotiations, be it an actual agreement, an extension, or the collapse of the negotiations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, International Security, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom, Iran, France, and Germany

153. Japan's Nuclear Fuel Cycle Futures

Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
The March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant triggered a public crisis of confidence in Japan's nuclear energy program. Once reliant on over 50 nuclear power reactors for 30% of its electricity generation, none of the reactors are in operation today. Instead, Japan has relied on importing coal, gas and oil with predict - able, negative effects on its trade balance, environment, and economy.
Topic:
Security, Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Japan

154. The US Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad

Author:
Jon Wolfsthal
Publication Date:
01-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) convened an event to release its latest report “The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Triad: US Strategic Nuclear Modernization Over the Next Thirty Years.” The report concludes that the United States will likely spend over $1 trillion during the next three decades to maintain its current nuclear arsenal and purchase their replacement systems. The necessary level of procurement spending, as a percentage of the defense budget, will peak at levels comparable to the Reagan-era build-up of nuclear forces. To date, few senior officials from the White House or Department of Defense or in the Congress have publicly acknowledged or laid out the full scale of these costs to the American public. This lack of public debate will likely lead to sticker shock as the full cost of these programs come due, leading to budget cuts and program delays. “The strategic and financial challenges facing our country are enormous,” said Jon Wolfsthal, CNS Deputy Director and former nuclear advisor to Vice President Joseph Biden. “Policy makers lack the basic information needed to make smart choices about our nuclear arsenal, putting both our deterrent and future reductions at risk.” The report cites particular concern over the pace of planned construction of strategic systems to replace systems that are set to retire starting in 2030. The United States plans, from 2024-29, to build five strategic submarines, 72 strategic bombers, and 240 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). This represents more delivery vehicles than the combined nuclear forces of China, the United Kingdom, and France. It is unclear that the industrial and management capabilities in the United States are capable of this production rate in times of budget constraint.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, Budget, and Military Spending
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

155. US and Russia Can End Use of Weapons-Usable Uranium for Medical Uses

Author:
Miles A. Pomper
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
A new report co-authored by CNS Senior Research Associate Miles Pomper recommends steps for the United States and Russia to cooperate in ending Russian use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in medical isotope production, an important step in keeping this nuclear weapons material from terrorists. Great progress has been achieved in recent years in minimizing civilian use of HEU as part of the international efforts to reduce the nuclear terrorism threat. In particular, the leading global suppliers of the molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) isotope, which is widely used in medical diagnostics, are taking steps to reduce and, in the medium time frame, completely eliminate the use of HEU in the production of medical isotopes. Major new steps towards phasing out HEU use in medical isotopes production could be announced at the Nuclear Security Summit that will take place in The Hague on March 24-25, 2014. The Russian nuclear industry has set for itself an ambitious goal of becoming one of the three top global suppliers of Mo-99, used in 80 per cent of the medical procedures involving isotopes particularly as a diagnostic tool. Growing Russian production could help stabilize the global Mo-99 market, which faced severe shortages on several occasions in 2005-2013. According to some estimates, in 2010 during a six month period medical facilities around the world were unable to perform diagnostic procedures for several million people due to the shortage of Mo-99; the shortfall was estimated at 7 million doses. However, until recently, Russia had been bucking global trends by planning to use HEU fuels and targets rather than safer low enriched uranium (LEU) for much of this production. The ‘Ending HEU Use in Medical Isotope Production: Options for Russian-US Cooperation’ report co-authored by the Moscow-based Center for Energy for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS) analyses what can be done by Moscow and Washington to harmonize the Russian producers’ plans to win a share of the global market, while at the same time facilitating the Russian nuclear industry’s transition to new market requirements for producing Mo-99 without HEU.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, and Medicine
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

156. Countering Nuclear Commodity Smuggling: A System of Systems

Author:
Leonard Spector
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Abstract:
A comprehensive Center for Nonproliferation Studies report calls on the United States and other concerned countries to adopt tighter controls to stem the flow of nuclear-related goods to Iran, North Korea, and other states of proliferation concern. Even modest improvements across the spectrum of today’s nuclear technology controls could greatly strengthen overall international efforts to constrain illicit nuclear procurement networks, the study found. The now available report, Countering Nuclear Commodity Smuggling: A System of Systems, was prepared by Leonard S. Spector and Egle Murauskaite. The study was supported by the US Department of Defense.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Asia, and North Korea

157. New Nuclear Suppliers Encouraging Responsible Nuclear Supply by China, Republic of Korea, and India

Author:
Sharon Squassoni
Publication Date:
12-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Nuclear energy seemed set for revitalization until the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011. The accident that melted the cores of three light water reactors raised questions about the costs and risks of nuclear energy in many countries. Some countries have cancelled procurement, others have shut down reactors, and still others have declared a shift away from a nuclear future.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Environment, Natural Disasters, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, Asia, and Korea

158. New Nuclear Builds in Central and Eastern Europe: Safety Aspects

Author:
Jodi Lieberman
Publication Date:
12-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
With nearly all of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe considering construction of new nuclear plants, either to add to existing units or for the first time, it can be instructive to take stock of where they started following 1989, where they are now, and what lies ahead. Most of the countries benefited from nuclear safety-related assistance in the past. Through their membership in the EU and IAEA they also have access to the tools and institutional procedures that can be useful in assessing their nuclear programmes from a nuclear safety point of view. Poland, starting from scratch with a new nuclear build, may benefit from extensive external experience.
Topic:
Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Europe

159. Restoring U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Energy

Author:
Michael Wallace and George David Banks
Publication Date:
06-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
America's nuclear energy industry is in decline. Low natural gas prices, financing hurdles, failure to find a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste, reactions to the Fukushima accident in Japan, and other factors are hastening the day when existing U.S. reactors become uneconomic, while making it increasingly difficult to build new ones. Two generations after the United States took this wholly new and highly sophisticated technology from laboratory experiment to successful commercialization, our nation is in danger of losing an industry of unique strategic importance and unique promise for addressing the environmental and energy security demands of the future.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
United States

160. Nuclear Energy: The Safe, Clean, Cost-Effective Alternative

Author:
Thomas J. Eiden
Publication Date:
10-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Objective Standard
Institution:
The Objective Standard
Abstract:
Contrary to claims by opponents of nuclear energy that it is "unsafe," "unclean," and thus "unacceptable," nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, and among the most practical forms of power generation today. Unfortunately, opponents of this wonderful source of power are succeeding in their efforts to deceive people about it; and the deceived, in turn, are fueling legislation and regulations that shackle the nuclear industry. It is time to set the record straight and to defend this life-serving industry. Let us begin with a summary of the nature of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is generated by a controlled chain reaction involving the splitting of atoms. A modern nuclear power plant uses the intense heat created by this reaction to heat water and create steam, which turns a turbine and generates electricity. Whereas a coal-fired plant heats water by burning coal, a nuclear plant heats it by splitting atoms. This process is called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission, in simple terms, occurs when an atom splits in two, releasing a massive amount of energy and several subatomic particles called neutrons. These neutrons, in turn, hit and split other atoms, beginning and sustaining the chain reaction. Reactor operators control this reaction in a variety of ways and thus regulate the amount of heat generated and energy produced. The raw fuel for this process is the metal uranium, which must be enriched before it can be used for producing energy in commercial reactors. Enrichment is necessary because mined uranium ore is around 99.3 percent uranium-238, which, in today's commercial power plants, does not readily split upon exposure to neutrons from the fission chain reaction, and thus makes poor fuel. The other 0.7 percent of mined uranium is uranium-235, which makes excellent fuel. The number refers to the atomic mass, or the total mass of protons and neutrons that make up the atomic nucleus. This difference in mass of the same element makes them two different isotopes of uranium. The enrichment process consists essentially of increasing the percentage of uranium-235 by decreasing the percentage (via removal) of uranium-238. The fuel manufacturing process ultimately yields black, pinky-sized pellets of usable nuclear fuel. These pellets are stacked in tubes of a special metal alloy, and thousands of these fuel rods are placed in a reactor core. The rods are arranged in a very specific geometric configuration to enable a sustained nuclear reaction to occur. The nuclear fission reaction is controlled by inserting or removing a separate set of rods made of neutron-absorbing metal or by adding neutron-absorbing chemicals to the water that cools the reactor. All methods of producing energy involve risk, and nuclear fission is no exception. Historically, however, nuclear power has been by far the safest form of energy production among reliable and scalable energy sources. Nuclear power is safer than other forms of energy for several reasons. To begin with, . . .
Topic:
Nuclear Power